Does genetic modification lead to more and better crops? Or will it destroy the foundations of our food systems?

French farmers and activists reap what they called an "illegal" plot of genetically modified rapeseed developed by the agribusiness company Monsanto. Robert Pratta/Reuters

Two weeks ago, Monsanto announced
the latest genetically engineered crop it hopes to bring to market: a soybean
rejiggered to resist the herbicide dicamba. The new product, says Monsanto,
will aid in weed control and "deliver peace of mind for growers."

Meanwhile, half a world away, La Via Campesina, a farmers'
movement of 150 organizations from 70 countries, had a slightly different idea about
what would bring peace of mind to its millions of members: protecting
biodiversity. In its statement to
those gathered in Bali for the United Nations treaty on plant
genetics, the organization urged treaty drafters to reevaluate the legal
framework that allows seed patenting and the spread of genetically engineered
crops, like those Monsanto soybeans. These genetically modified crops and the
international patent regime, La Via Campesina said, block farmers' ability to
save and share seeds, threatening biodiversity and food security.

In 2004, half of global seed sales were controlled by 10 companies. Today, those companies control nearly three-quarters of sales.

Monsanto and La Via Campesina represent two distinct worldviews.
According to Monsanto and other chemical and seed giants like Syngenta, BASF,
and Dupont, corporate control of seeds and relaxed laws for biotech promotion
spur innovation and productivity.

That may sound good, but
La Via Campesina and many other groups around the world look at the real-world
effects of 20 years of patent approvals and the spread of biotech crops. These
critics argue that corporate power over seeds has actually undermined
biodiversity and food-system resilience.

This debate is significant. Which side we listen to will largely
determine just how well we can continue to feed the planet, especially as we
contend with ever greater weather extremes brought on by global warming when
crop resilience will be paramount.

Since the 1980 Diamond
v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court decision, companies in the U.S. have been
able to patent life forms, including seeds. In Europe, since 1999, nearly 1,000
patents on animals and 1,500 on plants have been approved; thousands more are
pending, and not just for genetically engineered crops, but for conventional
ones, too. Monsanto and Syngenta alone have filed patents for dozens of
conventional vegetables, including tomatoes, sweet peppers, and melons. This
means tightening control on how and where certain crops can be planted and even
whether certain seed lines are continued—or exterminated.

In contrast to what we hear from Monsanto, patents actually restrict
innovation, as researchers can no longer freely use patented plants in breeding
experimentation. Increasing market concentration in seed ownership has also
destroyed true market competition. In 2004, half of global seed sales were
controlled by 10 companies. Today, those companies control nearly
three-quarters of sales. This concentration has led to higher prices and
shrinking choice for consumers.

Add to this corporate consolidation the spread of biotech crops
and you see why biodiversity is becoming so threatened. Biotech crops, like
other industrial crops, are monocultures, with single varieties planted over
millions of acres and sprayed with chemicals. Despite promises about wonder
crops that would end Vitamin A deficiency or withstand drought, nearly all
commercially available genetically modified foods are just one of two types,
designed either to withstand a specific pesticide or to include a built-in
pesticide. Fifty percent of all biotech crops planted worldwide are soybeans. Three
countries--the United States, Brazil, and Argentina--grow 77 percent of all genetically
modified crops, nearly all destined for livestock, not the world's hungry.

Biotech crops also affect biodiversity in ways that "traditional"
industrial crops don't: by risking the genetic integrity of cultivated and wild
plants. In a 2006
report, Doug Gurian-Sherman, now with the Union of
Concerned Scientists, explained: "Genetic engineering ups the ante when it
comes to the potential for harm to wildlife from gene flow, because organisms
in natural ecosystems have not adapted to many of the genes used in field
trials. With the recent approval of genetically engineered alfalfa in the
United States, organic farmers here are ever more concerned about such a
"genetic trespass."

Among biodiversity's many benefits is that it provides a reservoir
of potentially essential genetic material, varieties that might be found to be
more resilient in the face of more droughts and floods, for instance. Says Jack
Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology at New Zealand's
University of Canterbury Heinemann, "If we jeopardize this biodiversity for
the sake of a possiblewonder
trait for tomorrow, then we won't have any wonder traits for the day after
tomorrow."

That's not what the biotech industry is saying. Instead, Monsanto,
the world's leading manufacturer of genetically modified foods, is spending
millions on a PR campaign to convince the public that its technology will be
vital to meeting the world's growing food demands. In early 2009,
Monsanto's biotechnology chief, Steve Padgette, claimed
that new crops like its forthcoming drought-resistant corn "will reset the bar
for on-farm productivity." Never mind that experts in the field say engineering
drought resistance is many years off—if even possible—and that biotech crops
have not delivered consistently greater yields. The International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, a multi-year study
contributed to by more than 600 experts from around the world, concluded that
the benefits of agricultural biotechnology "is anecdotal and contradictory, and
uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable."

Meanwhile, agricultural projects from around the world—especially
in drought-stricken parts of East Africa—are showing the incredible potential
of sustainable farming practices. The introduction of agroecological techniques
on smallholder plots in hundreds of projects throughout Africa studied by England's University
of Essex brought an increase in crop yields of an average of 116 percent. As
a means for improving resiliency and sustainability within the global food
chain, agroecology is now supported by a "wide range of experts within the
scientific community," said Olivier de
Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

Back in Bali, La Via Campesina described its farmer members as
being in the midst of a "war for control over seeds." Strong language, yes. But
if we don't heed the organization's call for stricter regulation of the biotech
and seed industry, biodiversity may just become collateral damage.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.